Lieber and Human Rights

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Daniel P. Tompkins: "Re: Gould, S. J."
• Previous message: Todd N Nims: "Gould, S. J."

>...The Yanamamo case is a clear example of subordinating the interest of th=
e
>individual to the survival of the "collective."...There is nothing more
>dangerous in this world than an absolutist with a cause.

Mike Lieber

Hmmm!!! A very interesting opinion, and definitely, absolutist positions
are dangerous, but it is also extremely dangerous to opt for "utilitarian"
explanations (from professionals) for solutions by a society which belong
to a forbidden morality within many other societies. The Nazis had also
explanations that their territory would not suffice the survival, that
their culture was being undermined by "non-pure" individuals. WE COULD, IN
A CERTAIN WAY, TAKE LIEBER=B4S EXPLANATION OF THE YANOMAMO FOR THE NAZI
CRIMES - WOULD WE FEEL WELL WITH THAT?

>Take, for example, the Yanamamo practice of female infanticide. From the
point of view of the individual, this is clearly a violation of individual
rights, and someone should put a stop to it. But if one takes the time and
trouble (and research) to delineate the context--and this is what anthropolo=
gy
is about--one sees a different picture.

Why isn=B4t it, say, a male infanticide? What is the imaginary, that always
females are responsible for desease, overpopulation, etc. In Lieber=B4s
utilitarian outline females seem to be "sexual-beasts":
>"If they cease the practice of female infanticide, there will be more girls
surviving to adulthood and thus more wives and more children. The populatio=
n
will grow and the problem will be feeding them,..." - Male feed, women
destroy!??? - Anthropology should really do more than "delineating the
context"!




Thomas Fillitz Institut fuer Voelkerkund=
e
thomas.fillitz@univie.ac.at University of Vienna

• Next message: Daniel P. Tompkins: "Re: Gould, S. J."
• Previous message: Todd N Nims: "Gould, S. J."